Re: A Little Linguistic Playground

On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Rod Dixon <rod[_at_]cyberspaces.org> wrote:
>
> On 3/20/99, Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, the original poster wanted to invent a catchy new phrase for use
> > by the -copyright owner-, to indicate the deliberate release of their
> > own work into the public domain. They can legally do that, yes?
>
> Yes. It's called a license. Also, remember that if the copyright owner
> cares not, then neither does the law of copyright. Infringement may
> occur automatically, but it's not self-executing.
>

A license does not release the work into the public domain. First, it must be granted to a specific party. Second, it is generally treated as revocable unless it provides otherwise. Third, even if it *does* claim to be irrevocable, in many cases the copyright owner can *still* revoke it at least once, and maybe twice, under the termination of transfer provisions. Finally, even if the work is really, truly in the public domain, there is some precedent (104A) for automatically resurrecting it from the dead.

In short, I'm not sure you *can* put a work irrevocably into the public domain, binding yourself and your great-grandchildren never to sue for copyright infringement.

Mark A. Lemley
Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu

Information on UT's Intellectual Property program: http://www.utexas.edu/law/acadprogs/intelprop/

My publications list: http://www.law.utexas.edu/lemley/pubs.htm Received on Tue Mar 23 1999 - 15:22:54 GMT